[Re: http://tools.ietf.org/search/draft-hain-ipv6-ulac-01]

Sun Apr 25 23:42:31 UTC 2010

On Apr 25, 2010, at 3:50 PM, Mark Smith wrote:

> On Sun, 25 Apr 2010 13:21:16 -0400
> Richard Barnes <richard.barnes at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Moreover, the general point stands that Mark's problem is one of bad
>> ISP decisions, not anything different between IPv4/RFC1918 and IPv6.
>> 
> 
> My example, although a bit convoluted to demonstrate a point, is about
> robustness against Internet link failure. I don't think people's
> internal connectivity should be dependent on their Internet link being
> available and being assigned global address space. That's what the
> global only people are saying.
> 
Your internet connectivity, by definition, depends on an internet link
being available.  No link, no connection.  Simple as that.

Now, if you're talking about multihoming, I, as one of the global only
people, am suggesting that you get your global addresses from ARIN
and advertise it to both of your upstreams.

I know this is not popular with many of the ISPs out there because there
is a cost to that and a scale factor that still has yet to be addressed in the
IP routing paradigm. However, I think that will happen anyway.

Alternatively, even if you want to do some funky NAT-based solution,
there's nothing wrong with using GUA on the internal side of the NAT
to your PA prefixes outside. That way, when you get the opportunity to
remove that NAT cruft from your environment, you already have usable
addresses and you don't have to renumber.

> (how is the customer going to access the CPE webserver to enter ISP
> login details when they get the CPE out of the box, if hasn't got
> address space because it hasn't connected to the ISP ...)

That's what Link Local is for.

fe80::<EUI-64>%<interface>

For example, if the CPE is connected to the customer's network on eth0
and the CPE mac address is 00:45:4b:b9:02:be, you could go to:

http://[fe80::0245:4bff:feb9:02be]%eth0

Owen

>> 
>> 
>> On Sun, Apr 25, 2010 at 11:48 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> On Apr 25, 2010, at 8:17 AM, Tony Hoyle wrote:
>>> 
>>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>>> Hash: SHA1
>>>> 
>>>> On 25/04/2010 03:01, Mark Smith wrote:
>>>>> I'm a typical, fairly near future residential customer. I have a NAS
>>>>> that I have movies stored on. My ISP delegates an IPv6 prefix to me with
>>>>> a preferred lifetime of 60 minutes, and a valid lifetime of 90 minutes
>>>> 
>>>> What ISP would put a 'lifetime' on your ipv6 prefix?  That seems insane
>>>> to me... they should give you a /48 and be done with it.  Even the free
>>>> tunnel brokers do that.
>>>> 
>>>> But then I never understood dynamic ipv4 either....
>>>> 
>>> If they are using DHCP-PD, then, it comes with a lifetime whether it is
>>> static or not.
>>> 
>>> The reality is that unless they need to renumber you, you'll probably get
>>> a new RA with the 60/90 minute lifetimes specified each time RAs are
>>> sent and your counters will all get reset to 60/90 for the foreseeable
>>> future.  The preferred and valid lifetimes aren't limitations, they're
>>> minimums.  The prefix should be yours and should be functional for
>>> you for AT LEAST the valid lifetime.
>>> 
>>> Owen
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>> 